A visit to Nagasaki

[Professor Smooth]

I had a four day weekend, so I decided to take a trip and see some more of this fantastic country. I wanted to keep the costs down, so Osaka and Tokyo were out. In a coin-toss between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagasaki won.

So, a two hour train ride later, I'm in Nagasaki. Pretty nice as cities go, and there is certainly quite a bit about that thing that happened here 60 years ago. There is a museum, a memorial, and a park. Well, as most people from outside of Asia only know Nagasaki for one thing, I figured I might as well see what learning about that one thing was like from the other side.

In American history books, you basically get this story: To finally bring an end to WWII the United States dropped the largest bomb in human history on the city of Nagasaki. It killed a lot of people, but it did lead to an end to the war without having to actually invade the country. The one line synopsis is "It was a terrible thing to do, but it did finally end that war."

That line is no longer going to fly with me. Learning about it from "the other side's" history books is not even close to being here and seeing what happened. The memorial is incredibly tasteful. There are pilars glass and light underground that point upward towards the hypocenter of the explosion. Another pilar keeps books with the names of all those who were wounded or killed by the blast. The museum has different artifacts and pictures of what happened before, during, and after the explosion. Video screens show footage and still pictures of the immediate aftermath. There are pictures of people who were hurt in the explosion that go beyond gruesome.

Nagasaki was not a military target. It was not even the original target of the bomb. Originally, the US wanted to bomb Kokura (where I live now, ironically enough), but it was too cloudy do drop it there. So instead, the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and 75,000 civillians were killed instantly. 10s of thousands more would die of the after-effects.

But yes, it did end the war. Vaporizing cities one by one can have that effect. I honestly don't see the logic of "well it ended the war" working anymore. If an Iraqi insurgent managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in Chicago and that finally pushed the US out of Iraq, would the rest of the world be content to say, "it was necessary to end the war" when all was said and done? I don't think they would.

If you ever want to get REALLY sick to your stomach about where war or just violence in general can lead, take a trip to Nagasaki. I wouldn't be surprised if you were at least a little different when you left.

[Hot Shot]

Interesting stuff. It's always good to hear both sides of a story or event.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that bomb trigger birth defects in the children of the survivors?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Smooth, the world was a different place, it was a different type of war, I think its hard to compare.

If the a-bomb didnt work, then you would have had a different situation, invasion, or the US being invaded - either 75k of ppl, by WW2 standards, would have been a drop in the ocean.

Unfortuantly, what your looking at is the lesser of two evils really, if they hadnt have dropped the bomd, its fair to say more people would have died.

[Shanti418]

Nonetheless, it wasn't a military target. You know, killing civillians. It's something that you can only do if you're a nation state, then it's collatarel damage. If you're not a nation state and you kill civillians, you're a "terrorist".

[Professor Smooth]

75,000 civillians dead.
75,000 soldiers dead.

I believe that the lesser of two evils would be 75,000 soldiers.

The US demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. The only condition that Japan wanted was: The emperor will remain in power. The US refused, bombed two cities, and allowed the emperor to remain in power after he'd surrendered.

[Professor Smooth]

Ah! I've got it! 9/11 was justified because it ended the Taliban's reign in Afgahnistan!

[Predabot]

The US refused, bombed two cities, and allowed the emperor to remain in power after he'd surrendered.

Agree about dead soldiers, because they know they're going to die, and have taken that yoke upon them relatively freely, but why the H*LL did the US let the Emperor sit on his throne after humbling his frail limited human mind with the infinite power of the after-glow of CREATION ITSELF??!! He was at their MERCY! NO MORTAL can oppose the frightening titanic power of the THE ATOM ITSELF, not even an emperor.

Seriously. He was shivering in his boots, he knew he couldn't fight this new power.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

75,000 civillians dead.
75,000 soldiers dead.

I believe that the lesser of two evils would be 75,000 soldiers.

The US demanded unconditional surrender from Japan. The only condition that Japan wanted was: The emperor will remain in power. The US refused, bombed two cities, and allowed the emperor to remain in power after he'd surrendered.

Whoa!

the dead soilder thing doesnt work.

If you end up with 75k of dead soilders due to fighting across a country then where did all the people go at the same time?
throughout WW2, the style of war fare induced resulted in millions and millions of people being displaced, killed and blow up in cross fire.
I expect ontop of the 75k of dead soilders you can add on a few hundred thousand civis to that number.


You cannot compare the modern problems of post 9/11 to a WORLD that had just gone through 5 years of fighting and 60 Million casultys, people felt and thought differently about this stuff, life was pretty ******* cheap, and given the option, if it ment ending a war. Id drop the A bomb.

It was a different time, the world was tired of war and it was fastest way to end it - Its nasty but 75k of lives, 100k, 1 million. by this point in WW2 history, no one really gave a ****, they just wanted to win and go home.

Todays struggle/problem whatever is a different problem. we fight wars in different ways, both sides do.

Im not taking anything away from the damage done here, the people who died etc but I think it should be put into context. All across Europe, and Asia allied forces bashed thier way through WW2 killing millions of civis, destroying everything to stop Hitler.
Is this any different?

[Guest]

The US refused, bombed two cities, and allowed the emperor to remain in power after he'd surrendered.

Agree about dead soldiers, because they know they're going to die, and have taken that yoke upon them relatively freely, but why the H*LL did the US let the Emperor sit on his throne after humbling his frail limited human mind with the infinite power of the after-glow of CREATION ITSELF??!! He was at their MERCY! NO MORTAL can oppose the frightening titanic power of the THE ATOM ITSELF, not even an emperor.

Seriously. He was shivering in his boots, he knew he couldn't fight this new power.

Yes, those Americans sure were stupid not to press their advantage and crush the irradiated Japanese under their heels when they had the chance.


Seriously, that has to be one of the most ignorant statements ever made. Next time, try losing the theatrics before you compose, and then ask yourself if anyone sensible would ever say anything like that.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Ah! I've got it! 9/11 was justified because it ended the Taliban's reign in Afgahnistan!

Thats probably your most insensitive statement yet.

Goodbye Transfans. This place has gone from a pleasant place to interact with people I shared a hobby with, to a never ending assholefest.

[Predabot]

Yes, those Americans sure were stupid not to press their advantage and crush the irradiated Japanese under their heels when they had the chance.


Seriously, that has to be one of the most ignorant statements ever made. Next time, try losing the theatrics before you compose, and then ask yourself if anyone sensible would ever say anything like that.

But I like theatrics, taken to the utter limit they MAKE people listen.

But isn't the question valid? The one reason they bombed is because Japan wouldn't surrender without conditions, the bombs then put them in a position where the japanese knew that there was no way this could go down without an unconditional surrender, yet... The americans then allowed said condition anyway?? Bizarre.

And I know that we might like to think us civilised people above crushing our enemies utterly after giving them a supremely fatal blow, but history has shown that we're not. So why didn't the USA smash all but the tiniest of infra-structure, every war-material there was, and then occupy the entire country?

Granted, they put some heavy DUTY military bases in Japan, wich I suppose might be somewhat the same.

Goodbye Transfans. This place has gone from a pleasant place to interact with people I shared a hobby with, to a never ending assholefest.

You know.. you're my mate Rib, and I think you're an absolutely smashin' lad, doing one heck of a job with raising two kids and all, and I think you're fairly bright with some clever humour because of it, but...

Seriously, it became what it is many years ago, LONG before you joined up. How could you not have noticed this prior to joining??

[sprunkner]

Have you ever seen "The Fog of War?" Probably the best documentary on war and the soldier's mindset. Basically a long interview with Robert MacNamara.

http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=367&pID=411

It's notable for his comment about firebombing Japanese cities. Since the cities were mostly made of wood, the firebombing killed as many as the A-bombs, though of course there was no residual radiation. He says "If we had lost the war we would have been prosecuted as war criminals."

Another thought. Oppenheimer made a comment at one point about the atom bomb being "an unintentional peacemaker." He foresaw the US/Russian nuclear standoffs, maybe not between US and Russia, but the general principle of having the "weapon too dreadful to use." (That is actually the title of an Asimov story from the forties.)

A lot of people would say Oppenheimer was right. There have been no more World Wars. But there have been a lot of protracted coflicts in which both sides basically have a tentative agreement not to drop the bomb, but not to stop fighting, either. If every nuclear bomb on Earth disappeared tomorrow (or was thrown into the sun [supermanIV]) do you really think that world politics would become more vicious? Or that things--the Iraq conflict, the conflicts in Africa, the US-Iran standoff--would stay the same? Have we had the unintentional peacemaker for so long that we've learned to ignore it?

[Shanti418]

Ah! I've got it! 9/11 was justified because it ended the Taliban's reign in Afgahnistan!

Thats probably your most insensitive statement yet.

Goodbye Transfans. This place has gone from a pleasant place to interact with people I shared a hobby with, to a never ending assholefest.

I don't exactly agree with the logic of that statement, but I don't think you should leave the board over it.

All I've seen in your past few posts is you popping in to tell everyone they're assholes without explaining yourself or rebutting anyone's argument, and then you run off again before anyone can respond to your generalized blanket statement.

And, unlike that PREVIOUS statment, Preds is spot on: Transfans is what it is and always shall be.

The War on Terror/use of 9/11 as a political prop is never going to be liked by people around here. This board made up of mostly non Americans is never going to embrace US gun laws, or the US culture of violence, or intolerance, or anything of that sort. You can agree to disagree, or you can argue about it, but don't fold your cards and walk away from the table over a dynamic that was always there, but perhaps just didn't piss you off until now, for whatever reason.



Hell, I can't even get them to admit that THE REAL SPURS PLAY BASKETBALL AND ARE LOCATED IN SAN ANTONIO.


Oh yeah, Fog of War? HELL of a movie.

[The Last Autobot]

Have you ever seen "The Fog of War?" Probably the best documentary on war and the soldier's mindset. Basically a long interview with Robert MacNamara.

http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=367&pID=411

It's notable for his comment about firebombing Japanese cities. Since the cities were mostly made of wood, the firebombing killed as many as the A-bombs, though of course there was no residual radiation. He says "If we had lost the war we would have been prosecuted as war criminals."

Showing once more that history is written by the winners. How many 9/11 have been made before in Asia and nothing was done? Just because the ones who did it were either USA or one of their allies?

Fog of war is a good movie depicting how war it is and done. And how utterly stupid we are.

[sprunkner]

Ah! I've got it! 9/11 was justified because it ended the Taliban's reign in Afgahnistan!

Thats probably your most insensitive statement yet.

Goodbye Transfans. This place has gone from a pleasant place to interact with people I shared a hobby with, to a never ending assholefest.

Seriously, man. Nobody wants you to leave. Not all of us agree with that statement or the logic behind it. This is supposed to be a place where we can debate as friends.

[Yaya]

But yes, it did end the war. Vaporizing cities one by one can have that effect. I honestly don't see the logic of "well it ended the war" working anymore. If an Iraqi insurgent managed to detonate a nuclear weapon in Chicago and that finally pushed the US out of Iraq, would the rest of the world be content to say, "it was necessary to end the war" when all was said and done? I don't think they would.

Time for me to get into this controversial mix.

Let me say, I one hundred percent agree with Smooth here.

Sometimes, harsh words are necessary before someone can get past the fallacy of the existence of 'a perfect nation under God'.

How the killing of so many innocent people under any circumstances unjustly can be rationalized is beyond me.

The U.S. is my country, and it has done some remarkably good things and still does, but as a nation we all too often fail to look past the haze of what I like to call 'patriotic intoxication', where we become so enamored by our nation and our people where we actually come to believe we can do no wrong.

We didn't drop one bomb. We dropped two. Kind of defeats the argument by some that we didn't realize the destruction such a weapon could really cause, doesn't it? Oh, we praise Truman as our President, as if carrying that mantle somehow makes him infallible, and worthy of only praise.

There have even been accusations, though not well substantiated by U.S. sources, but claimed by some Japanese, that Pearl Harbor was instigated by the U.S., and not by Japan. That is, that there were falsified communications relayed to the Japanese by the U.S. that the U.S. was going to imminently attack, leading to the Japanese feeling it was necessary to strike first preemptively.

Impossible? Now, given the current U.S. regime, the fabrications and the lies that we have all been victim to in the past six years, is it beyond possibility that this could in fact have been true?

No! Not our country!

We can love our country, but it must not be unconditional. We put black people in chains. We wiped out the real Americans. We put the Japanese in concentration camps. We invaded Iraq. We injected black people with syphilis to see what would happen.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Time for me to get into this controversial mix.

Let me say, I one hundred percent agree with Smooth here.

Sometimes, harsh words are necessary before someone can get past the fallacy of the existence of 'a perfect nation under God'.

How the killing of so many innocent people under any circumstances unjustly can be rationalized is beyond me.

60 million people died in WW2, droping the A bomb probably resulted in millions of people not dying in a full scale invasion. so if u had a choice.
70k V's say 1 million lives - which one do u choose?

Thats the justification, as horrible as it might be. Ive already said all this above, I really do think you have to understand the world as a whole in WW2, and not judge the situation by todays standards.

[Yaya]

60 million people died in WW2, droping the A bomb probably resulted in millions of people not dying in a full scale invasion. so if u had a choice.
70k V's say 1 million lives - which one do u choose?

No offense, but that's a warped sense of perspective, IMO.

See how you phrase your question: "Dropping the A bomb probably resulted in millions of people not dying..."

The key word there is "probably", which conveys uncertainty.

Dropping a A-bomb is a certainty that thousands will die. Full scale invasion was not a certainty.

You deal with the situation at hand, not the many "probably"'s that could come about.

I would not have dropped the bomb. No way.

[Professor Smooth]

Serious question. Why did the US need to make the choice between invading Japan and vaporizing two Japanese citizens. What would have been the consequence of that action? Germany had already surrendered. Would Japan have continued WWII alone?

Did the US feel that they needed Japan's surrender to punish them for backing Germany?

On another topic, I am absolutely sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Bombing vs invasion, Christianity vs Islam, Conservative Democrat vs Conservative Republican. It's why I left the United States in the first place. And do you know what? I'm much happier having made that decision.

Why can't the masses choose what's right instead of what is the least wrong? A battle that kills a million people and a bomb that kills 200,000 are BOTH bad. So perhaps BOTH courses of action need to be reevaluated. Talk this **** out, people! Find a compromise.

This won't be well received, but if one side is willing to sacrifice thousands of lives and billions of dollars taking somebody's land, then maybe it would be better to just let them have it. It would save lives, money, and resources. I suspect that the average citizen really doesn't care who their tax-dollars go to. I suspect that they don't really care what country controls what, just so long as they can go about their day-to-day lives.

I think the whole world would benefit from following two basic ideas.
1) Killing other people is wrong.
2) Two wrongs don't make a right.

Wow, that was long and rambling.

[Yaya]

On another topic, I am absolutely sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Bombing vs invasion, Christianity vs Islam, Conservative Democrat vs Conservative Republican. It's why I left the United States in the first place. And do you know what? I'm much happier having made that decision.

Evil is relative. In your mind, Islam is evil. Not so in mine, in fact, quite the opposite.

Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that you are now in a place free of it. There is no place free of it, and with time, you will come to find if you haven't already, that Japan too has it's share of what you might define as evil.

Though I will say, having been to Japan before, and comparing it to the U.S., there is more evil here than there, so I will agree with you on that.

[wideload]

Serious question. Why did the US need to make the choice between invading Japan and vaporizing two Japanese citizens. What would have been the consequence of that action? Germany had already surrendered. Would Japan have continued WWII alone?

Did the US feel that they needed Japan's surrender to punish them for backing Germany?

Well yes, Japan was pretty hellbent on carrying on the war w/out Germany. The two forces were never really connected in any way. Japanese never fought along side Germans. One was merely a distraction for the other. Furthermore, a continued war in the Pacific would have made redevelopment and peace in Europe very difficult.

People are also forgetting that the vast majority of peolpe being killed in the Pacific were neither Japanese nor American. They were Chinese, Indonesian, Korean etc.. The Japanese invading forces were brutal and set up camps similar to those in Europe. Say what you want about the bomb, but it put a stop to that immediately.

I've always had a really hard time feeling sympathetic for the Japanese. Lets invade our neighbours, rape and murder tens of millions of civilians. Then we expect everyone's sympathy because we lose 75000 after refusing to surrender.

Also the official estimates given to Truman before his decision to drop the bomb were not 75k solider, but 1.4 to 4 million allied soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_ ... n_conflict). Although this may have been an overestimate, it would have been the only real number Truman had to work with when he decided to drop the bomb. On top of that number, who knows how many casualties (both civilian and military) the Japanese and surrounding Asian countries would have experienced in this time.

[Professor Smooth]

I really don't want to get into a debate about the evils of Islam and Christianity right now, because it's not relevent. I will clarify by saying that I don't believe that they themselves are evil, just that people use both of them to do almost unspeakably bad things. Abortion clinic bombings and the 9/11 attacks respectively.

I told my parents that I had visited Nagasaki and that it was really depressing. They responded with, "Well yeah, it's just a crater, right?" No. It's not a crater. In addition to the Atomic Bomb museum and the Memorial to those killed by the Atomic Bomb, there is also a park. It is called Peace Park. It is a beautiful place. It does not exist only to honor the dead, but to promote the idea of peace.

I like the idea of peace. It's strange. Like, perhaps you don't really need to fight for it. You need to abstain from fighting for it. You also have to accept that, sometimes, you won't be able to get what you want. But then again, you don't always get what you want even after you fight for it.

[Shanti418]

The U.S. is my country, and it has done some remarkably good things and still does, but as a nation we all too often fail to look past the haze of what I like to call 'patriotic intoxication'

I prefer the term "fanatic nationalism".

[Professor Smooth]

Serious question. Why did the US need to make the choice between invading Japan and vaporizing two Japanese citizens. What would have been the consequence of that action? Germany had already surrendered. Would Japan have continued WWII alone?

Did the US feel that they needed Japan's surrender to punish them for backing Germany?

Well yes, Japan was pretty hellbent on carrying on the war w/out Germany. The two forces were never really connected in any way. Japanese never fought along side Germans. One was merely a distraction for the other. Furthermore, a continued war in the Pacific would have made redevelopment and peace in Europe very difficult.

People are also forgetting that the vast majority of peolpe being killed in the Pacific were neither Japanese nor American. They were Chinese, Indonesian, Korean etc.. The Japanese invading forces were brutal and set up camps similar to those in Europe. Say what you want about the bomb, but it put a stop to that immediately.

I've always had a really hard time feeling sympathetic for the Japanese. Lets invade our neighbours, rape and murder tens of millions of civilians. Then we expect everyone's sympathy because we lose 75000 after refusing to surrender.

Also the official estimates given to Truman before his decision to drop the bomb were not 75k solider, but 1.4 to 4 million allied soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_ ... n_conflict). Although this may have been an overestimate, it would have been the only real number Truman had to work with when he decided to drop the bomb. On top of that number, who knows how many casualties (both civilian and military) the Japanese and surrounding Asian countries would have experienced in this time.

Thanks. I admit, I did not know that.

I must point out that you are doing a "lesser of two evils" thing here. Indeed, the Japanese government and army was responsible for a lot of atrocities during the war. Read "Warriors of Bushido" to get some idea of HOW horrible. They were responsible for the deaths of a number of civillians greater than or equal to those killed in the atomic blast.

However, that does not mean that there should be no sympathy towards Japanese civillians who were killed in the blast. Those civillians were not responsible for the deaths of civillians in other nations.

Smooth's rule #2 for a better world. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

It's terrible that so many civillians died. It doesn't matter what side they were on. Blasting civillians until the government agrees to your demands is absolutely no different from taking a hostage while you're robbing a bank. You pick somebody (or a whole group of somebodies) that can't defend themselves and threaten to kill them unless a third party does what they want.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

60 million people died in WW2, droping the A bomb probably resulted in millions of people not dying in a full scale invasion. so if u had a choice.
70k V's say 1 million lives - which one do u choose?

No offense, but that's a warped sense of perspective, IMO.

See how you phrase your question: "Dropping the A bomb probably resulted in millions of people not dying..."

The key word there is "probably", which conveys uncertainty.

Dropping a A-bomb is a certainty that thousands will die. Full scale invasion was not a certainty.

You deal with the situation at hand, not the many "probably"'s that could come about.

I would not have dropped the bomb. No way.

To achive the downfall of Japan would have required a full scale land invasion.

Lets look at the model that was in place, ala WW2 - and combine the kamazi never say die fighting attitude that the JPN soilders had displayed across the rest of the conflict zones.

Now, if you belive you could have invaded Japan, and not killed more than 70k of people on either side than you need to study WW2 a bit more.

You only need to look at costal invasions of Dunkirk (twice), Gallipoli etc... to see that most costal invasion forces suffer huge losses, the loss in Japan would have been no different.

Now, one thing that seems to be missed here, is the damage to nation.

You might argue that the A-bomb did a huge ammount of damage to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but when you compare the damage done by allied forces across Africa and Europe its nothing by comparisson. France, Germany the Netherlands etc... were utterly destroyed, it would have taken 100 A bombs to cause the same damage.

Unless you can come up with a soulotuion that would hav enot wrecked Japan in accordance with WW2, and found a way not to displace millions of people and on top of all that found a magic way to defeat Japans armies without the resultant death of millions of men women and children.
Then dropping the A-bomb was the best souloution.

There is no argument or choice. if you dont want 70k of deaths, you would have had millions. a country utterly destroyed, and millions of people displaced.

Show my evidence of WW2 warfare to the contary and you have an argument.

[Scraplet]

Impy; from the point of view of military strategy, best use of resources and utilitarian logic, your arguments prevail.

However, I get the feeling that Smooth and Yaya are not arguing about that; thay just mean incinerating civillians is never morally right. And I think you accept that too.

So what it comes down to;
Can it be JUSTIFIED to do something MORALLY WRONG if the outcome is less harmful/more benefical than the alternative?

From a utilitarian point of view, I'd say yes. That is all politics and economics really is, isn't it? Cost and benefit.

But while cost and benefit are objective, morality is subjective. so, while I agree with the essence of Smooth and Yaya, I can't see how you place morality into the decision making process of nation states, especially when they are on a war footing.

Christ, I've confused myself now. Did any of that make sense!

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Scraplet, your right, from a morality point of view its hard to justify bombing civis to win a war but from a military point of view, its a means to an end.

I think its worth pointing out that allied bombing runs over germany did far more damage, and killed far more civis then the a-boms in Japan, just looks at Dresden in germany...

But war has changed, even in the last 20 years we have moved from free fall bombs to target weapons. for starters its better to hit your 'proper' target and second, it should lower civi deaths.

I think Morality in war is always hard topic to debate, the two concepts are never going to get along very easily. war by definition is always going to result in mass loss of life, and morality will be shaking its head at every life lost.

I think once you start thinking about morality, in the terms of a war, does it just not become a war of two evils? a numbers game so to speak.
the reality of war is that thier are two or more sides, trying to achive, in all probablity, a similar scenario to each other.

With hindsight, could more have been done to contain Japan? possibly but were the allied forces interested in such an operation by this point in history? I dont think so...

to use a famous quote:
“I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with terrible resolve.” The words of: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

Id just like to point out, in case anyone didnt realise, I think its awfull what happened in Japan, i take nothing away from the shrines that the Japanese have erected in memory of the events, and i dont mean to sound callous in reproach either.

WW2 has always been facinating subject to myself, i cannot begin to explain the ammount of TV shows, books or web material I have digested on the subject, not to mention spin off subjects on the politics behind creating and dropping the first a-bombs, and how that changed the world forever.

WW2 battles, when looked at with hindsight, seem to rely alot on the 'lesser of two evils rules' modern weapons allows us to have a somewhat better moral judgement when it comes to conflict I suppose, the evoloution of warfare in the western world now deplores the blowing up of civis but it wasnt to long ago that the west used this tactic all the time.

Maybe thats why the west now cannot stomach the suicide bombers in the middle east, or even on the western door step, western warfare has simply evolved to a point where it cannot combat the idealism of these individuals. - off topic i know...

Out of interest, can smooth add a poll to this thread?
perhaps ask who would have dropped the a-bomb, or not dropped the a-bomb, or undecided. it would be interesting to know what people made of such a huge moral dilema.

[Leatherneck]

I don't think the proper course is to instantly demonize the lesser of two evils choices; I think a lot of us deal with them in our daily lives more than we'd consider: Do I keep driving straight and possibly hit the kid on the bike or swerve and maybe hit the minivan that could be full of a soccer team? Of course you hope that you can find a way to avoid both but there's plenty of times that it isn't possible. I think the same can be said of the WWII nuclear events. Had Truman tried to avert the civilian deaths by not dropping the atomic bomb, the course of action and potential casualties is already laid out above. Further, if my mind serves me correctly [study break, don't quite feel like looking it up but I'm fairly sure I'm accurate] there was 4 days between bombs in which the Japanese stuck to their never-say-die attitude that was prevalent throughout the war. So to answer the earlier comment about the US dropping two weapons, I don't think they were left with a choice, even knowing the consequences.

Further, Smooth, you talk of looking at the history of the event through the other party's eyes; however, while doing so, you [not the collective "you," but you Smooth] are doing what us nasty Americans are doing; only seeing one side of the coin. Perhaps that's not what's going on in your head, but that's how it looks on paper. Lucky for us, we have 60+ months of hindsight to look back on this to come to a conclusion that can take both sides into account. But to try and a) make it seem like the US was totally and wholly wrong in the situation is just as invalid as doing what you feel the US general population is doing.


I'm with Impy here for the most part; old adages always ring true [20/20 hindsight]. Both sides were dealing with limited and imperfect information, as is true in most military situations. To try and condemn the US as barbaric animals for their course of action given that you have all the information now and don't have the weight of lives on your shoulders is just foolish.

[Professor Smooth]

You make some excellent points. Perhaps the only way to end the war was to kill as many civillians as possible. However, since one of the reasons governments give for fighting a war is that the other side is killing civillians, doing exactly the same thing, loses you the moral high ground very quickly.

WWII was, as Impy has suggested, of a completely different era. It is of an era that is gone and will, most likely, never be again. I think that's comforting. Here, in 2007 (or Heisei 19), the idea of a country like the US dropping an atomic (or nuclear) bomb on a city is unthinkable. The use of atomic/nuclear weapons as a means of attack will probably not be in the United States, or any other leading country's arsenal ever again.

As it stands, feeling bad about what happened and expecting others to do the same does nobody any good. What happened happened. Was it right? Was it wrong? It's academic at this point. What most people agree on, given 60 years of hindsight, is that we should never do it again.

Our governments should never again use such a weapon on a civillian city. Can we agree on that?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Yes Smooth, like you say, i think its good to know that unless somthing utterly mental happens in the world, the idea of the US dropping an atomic weapon on a civi centre to 'win' so to speak, seems to me, at least, utterly improbable, which is comforting as a whole.

makes you wonder just what would nations target in a modern a cold war scenario? after you exhaust the military targets, do u move on to cities, and then why? - the reest of your nation would probably be so ****** over by then, what moral high ground of victory would you be hoping to achive for your own countries nation? - well, i guess thats why Nuke warfare is so utterly stupid in the first place...

On the subject of why the a bombs were dropped 4 days apart, suposedly the Emp of Japan claimed that Hiroshima was in fact a fluke, or to be more precise, Japan intel belived the USA only had 1 A-bomb, not far off, they only had 3... either way, the US had to push the point home and it eneded the war.
Memory fails me as its late but i belive that Nagasaki was not the intended 2nd target it was another town but it was covered by too much cloud on the day so they moved on to a plan B destination, which was Nagasaki.

On the subject of never dropping such adevice again, in the latest Iraqi war the US deployed the MOAB bomb, which whilst made of conventional high explosive was as potent as a the a-bomb dropped in Japan, it just doesnt have the radioactive fall out! scary yet somewhat amazing, from a science point of view.

What I do find even more scary is how far atomic weapons developed in the cold war, the A-bomb on Hiroshima was roughly 12,500 tons of TNT yet the 'Peacekeeper' multi warhead used by the USA in the cold war, and even today contained 5-10 Hydrogen bombs, each warhead is around 3.4 Kilotons of TNT.
yes thats right, your looking at a single war head almost 1000 times more powefull than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki x 10 warheads designed to blanket cover an area !!!

this is a picture of a single warhead test (largest captured on photo), it looks like a new sun has been born earth:

http://zvis.com/nuclear/dimg.php3?dyeso1,dmyeso

Its worth looking at some of these images, compare them to the Japan A-bombs, then to the H-bombs. man is nuts somedays...

http://zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgs.shtml

Nutty...scary...god knows...